Monthly attendance reports...

cdawardclerk wrote:As our new ward clerk I have inherited some practices that I now question. One of these concerns a monthly report form given to auxiliary secretaries requesting attendance, HT, and VT information. Besides the fact that many of these do not get filled out and returned to me I don't understand the need for this information on a regular monthly basis. I only need this information to fill out our ward's Quarterly Report meaning only four times per year. Is there a requirement in the Handbook or elsewhere that the Ward Clerk gather this data more than four times per year?

No, there is no requirement in the Handbook for turning such information in to the ward clerk. The only requirement is for the quarterly report.

However, there are excellent reasons for such information to be gathered more frequently. For example see this thread for information on the value of some attendance records. HT/VT information should be reviewed by the appropriate leaders much more often than quarterly. The ward clerk would probably only be involved if the bishop needs that specific information. Otherwise, the monthly information would remain at the quorum/auxiliarly level.

It's definitely a good practice to question the generation of reports, and to determine if they are being used to further the ministry. Discontinue those practices that don't help people, and embrace those that do.

The EQ President, HPGL, and RS President in our ward are pretty good about getting the HT/VT visits recorded monthly in MLS. I thought this was important to do because even though the numbers only get sent to CHQ quarterly, the stake president requests this information when he has periodic interviews with the bishop. I am able to printout the statistic portion of the respective HT/VT reports for the bishop to use in this interview, provided the EQP, RSP, and HPGL (or their secretaries) have done their part and kept it up-to-date in MLS.

larrydkb wrote:If the leaders only collect the information quarterly, it gives the impression they care about statistics, not people.

I don't think frequency has anything to do with it. It's the interview process. (<Ring> "How many did you HT last month? 'ppreciate ya" <click>) :rolleyes:

There was a time when such reports were monthly. It seemed to me we were spending quite a bit of effort doing the data gathering process every 4 Sundays. While monthly would be good for spotting trends with respect to individuals, Is it long enough to spot larger trends? IIRC, most of the numbers reported are aggregate. How much variation is statistical "noise" and how much is trend? In the case of HT/VT, I'd hope the teachers would approach the leaders if something were amiss with someone they taught..

I'm sure CHQ changed it to quarterly for a reason. That said, it's certainly the local leader's (not the clerks!) prerogative to ask for it monthly if they think it would be beneficial. But if they don't read the reports, then there's very little benefit.

larrydkb wrote:Actually I turned in a monthly report with comments and suggested that we should get into the habit of reporting monthly. Didn't do a lick of good, but that's probably why we have just a couple faithful home teachers only (literally). When they do collect the info, it doesn't include comments for helping the family. If the leaders only collect the information quarterly, it gives the impression they care about statistics, not people. Also, it might be hard to remember back three months of HT or attendance. If we get a leader who actually cares, I'll be ready with information showing the first signs of falling away, for example. There may not be a requirement Brother, but be glad your ward is doing it.

I hope my previous statement was not misconstrued. I have never heard anyone say that home or visiting teaching statistics should be collected less frequently than monthly. It is vital that the quorum, group, and Relief Society leaders stay on top of this individual ministry that takes place. I don't have a handbook with me, but I believe it actually is a requirement at that level. And as others have commented, it is not simply the numbers, but the deeper information that needs to be communicated as well. Most of that work will take place at the quorum/group/RS level.

I was simply commenting on this information being escalated beyond the quorum/group/RS level. A bishop may very well want this information every month; a stake president may request this information each month. If they want that information and will use it in their ministry, then that information should definitely be escalated. But if it is not being used at those higher levels monthly, then it should only be reported up the line quarterly (where they definitely are used by the stake and the Church) -- reporting numbers that are not used is meaningless.

Our stake requires all units (13) to report monthly progress reports by the 10th of each month. The quarterly reports are the only ones transmitted to SL. This has worked well for us as our stake presidency has been reviewing those reports each month and uses them in PI interviews with the Bishops. It has been helpful to spot and address significant changes from month to month.

It may not be for every unit or stake, but we have found it is difficult to track progress if there are less frequent reports.

My stake functions like yours does MRK, and as I recall when reading the CHI the topic includes the words to the effect, that the Quarterly report is done every 3 months, but that the Stake President may ask for these numbers more frequently, or something like that. So to me this type of reporting is actually mentioned in the CHI.

I would like to see these statistics done monthly in MLS, even if only the quarterlys are transmitted to CHQ. Sometimes my quorum and auxilliary leaders question my numbers because I adjust them as MLS would. For Instance, a member moves in can't be counted in that month's HT numbers, but they are reported through the EQ.